Can friends protect genetically vulnerable children from depression?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study examined whether reciprocal friendship quantity or quality can mitigate genetic vulnerability for depression symptoms in children. The sample comprised 168 monozygotic twin pairs and 126 same-sex dizygotic twin pairs assessed in Grade 4 (mean age = 10.04 years). Friendship participation was measured via reciprocal nominations of close friendships within the classroom. Friendship quality was measured through self-reports. Depression symptoms were measured through teacher and peer reports. Genetic vulnerability for depression symptoms was unrelated to friendship participation or the number of reciprocal friends, but it was negatively related to positive friendship quality. In line with gene-environment interaction, genetic risk effects on depression symptoms were mitigated in girls who had at least one close reciprocal friend. In boys, only moderate main effects of genetic vulnerability and friendship participation were found but no interaction between them. However, among boys with at least one reciprocal friend, a greater number of friends was related to fewer depression symptoms whereas no cumulative effect of friendship was found for girls. Finally, positive friendship quality was related to fewer depression symptoms in girls and boys even when controlling for genetic risk. The findings emphasize the importance of teaching social interactional skills that promote high-quality friendship relations to help prevent the development of depression symptoms in children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".